New York Times v. Sullivan – Opening Arguments

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association. You’ll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments!

We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234.

And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas’s bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby. Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan? (Hint: yes, yes he did.)

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here’s My Story podcast; go check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

Click here to check out the American Humanist Association.
We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234.
Click here to read Thomas’s concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Download Link

Tag: New York Times v. Sullivan

OA697: Feelin’ the Brn(ovich)

OA256: The Bladensburg Cross